Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent

Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 102, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 319-337

  Johnson, Amy M ^a   Ozogul, Gamze ^a   Moreno, Roxana ^b   Reisslein, Martin ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

Animated pedagogical agents; Multiple visual representations; Visual signaling

Indexed keywords

CIRCUIT DIAGRAMS; ENGINEERING INSTRUCTIONS; ENGINEERING LEARNING; LEARNING FROM TEXTS; NO-SIGNALING CONDITION; PEDAGOGICAL AGENTS; STUDENT ATTITUDES; VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS;

STUDENTS;

SIGNALING;

EID: 84875729817     PISSN: 10694730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jee.20009     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
2. Allen, K., Reed-Rhoads, T., Terry, R. A., Murphy, T. J., & Stone, A. D. (2008). Coefficient alpha: An engineer's interpretation of test reliability. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 87-94.
3. Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Royer, J. M., & Tai, M. (2009). Affective gendered learning companions. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Learning Systems That Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modelling (pp. 41-48). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
4. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.
5. Baker, S., Gersten, R., Dimino, J. A., & Griffiths, R. (2005). The sustained use of research-based instructional practice: A case study of peer-assisted learning strategies in mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 5-24.
6. Baylor, A. L. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 291-300.
7. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70-87.
8. Boucheix, J. M., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 20, 123-135.
9. Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304-328.
10. Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 641-666.
11. Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 441-466.
12. Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225.
13. Cosentino de Cohen, C., & Deterding, N. (2009). Widening the net: National estimates of gender disparities in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 211-226.
14. Davenport, S. V., Arnold, M., & Lassmann, M. (2004). The impact of cross-age tutoring on reading attitudes and reading achievement. Reading Improvement, 41, 3-12.
15. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105-134.
16. de Koning, B., Tabbers, H., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113-40.
17. Dehn, D. M., & Van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 1-22.
18. Fralick, B., Kearn, J., Thompson, S., & Lyons, J. (2009). How middle schoolers draw engineers and scientists. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 60-73.
19. Game, F., Carchon, I., & Vital-Durand, F. (2003). The effect of stimulus attractiveness on visual tracking in 2- to 6-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 26, 135-150.
20. Goldman, S. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13, 239-244.
21. Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27-54.
22. Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 18, 135-145.
23. Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329-343.
24. Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139-151.
25. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.
26. Karatas, F. O., Micklos, A., & Bodner, G. M. (2010). Sixth-grade students' views of the nature of engineering and images of engineers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(2), 123-135.
27. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(6), 569-596.
28. Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. (2004). Draw an engineer test (DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students' ideas about engineers and engineering. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 4079-4089.
29. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
30. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 359-366). New York, NY: ACM.
31. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240-246.
32. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484-490.
34. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth a thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
35. Meij, J. van der, & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199-212.
36. Mitrovic, A., & Suraweera, P. (2000). Evaluating an animated pedagogical agent. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1839, 73-82.
37. Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507-524). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-26.
39. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, A. H., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case of social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177-213.
40. Moreno, K. N., Person, N. K., Adcock, A. B., van Eck, R. N. V., Jackson, G. T., & Marineau, J. C. (2002). Etiquette and efficacy in animated pedagogical agents: The role of stereo-types. Paper presented at the AAAI Symposium on Personalized Agents, Cape Cod, MA.
41. Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2009). Optimizing worked-example instruction in electrical engineering: The role of fading and feedback during problem-solving practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 83-92.
42. Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Using virtual peers to guide visual attention during learning: A test of the persona hypothesis. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 52-60.
43. National Academy of Engineering. (2009). K-12 engineering education [Special issue]. The Bridge 39(3).
44. Orsack, G. C. (2003). Guest editorial: K-12: Engineering's new frontier. IEEE Transactions on Education, 46, 209-210.
45. Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behaviors, 26(1), 110-117.
46. Ozogul, G., Reisslein, M., & Johnson, A. M. (2011). Effects of visual signaling on pre-college students' engineering learning performance and attitudes: Peer versus adult pedagogical agents versus arrow signaling. Proceedings of the 118th Annual Conference and Exposition of the American Society for Engineering Education (AC 2011-344).
47. Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometric problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122-133.
48. Pinsk, M. A., Arcaro, M., Weiner, K. S., Kalkus, J. F., Inati, S. J., Gross, C. G., & Kastner, S. (2009). Neural representations of faces and body parts in macaque and human cortex: A comparative fMRI study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 101, 2581-2600.
49. Reisslein, M., Moreno, R., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Pre-college electrical engineering instruction: The impact of abstract vs. contextualized representation and practice on learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 225-235.
50. Reisslein, J., Sullivan, H., & Reisslein, M. (2007). Learner achievement and attitudes under different paces of transitioning to independent problem solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 45-55.
51. Robinson, D. R., Schofield, J. W., & Steers-Wentzell, K. L. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 327-362.
52. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students' attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2741-2756.
53. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Plant, A., Doerr, C. E., & Baylor, A. L. (2010). The influence of computer-based model's race and gender on female students' attitudes and beliefs towards engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 35-44.
54. Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2, 291-314.
55. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 9-25.
56. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
57. Schnotz, W., & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469-508.
58. Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 53(3), 47-58.
59. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 1998.
60. Taylor, J. C., Wigget, A. J., & Downing, P. E. (2007). Functional MRI analysis of body and body part representations in the extrastriate and fusiform body areas. Journal of Neurophysiology, 98, 1626-1633.
61. van Mulken, S., Andre, E., & Muller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? In H. Johnson, L. Nigay, & C. Roast (Eds.), People and Computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI'98 (pp. 53-66). Berlin: Springer Verlag.